Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

8 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Rules Enabling Act - USC 1652?
The law of the several states s/b regarded as rules of decisions in civil actions in the courts of the US, in cases where they apply. (Except in fed ? case).
Swift v. Tyson?
Fed ct h/ to follow state statutory law but not state decisional law in cases dealing with nonfed ?. P c/ shop around for favorable forum.
Swift introduced grave discrimination by non-citizens against citizens. It made rights enjoyed under the unwritten “general law” vary according to whether enforcement was sought in the state or in the fed ct; and the privilege of selecting the ct in which the right s/b determined was conferred upon the noncitizen.
Doctrine rendered impossible equal protection of the law. Wide range of persons held entitled to avail themselves of the federal rule by resort to the diversity of citizenship juris.
Ruled unconstitutional by Erie.
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins?
Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by Acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the State. Not a matter of federal concern. There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they be local in their nature or general, be they commercial law or a part of the law of torts.
Declare that in applying the doctrine this court and the lower courts have invaded rights which are reserved by the Const of several states.
There is no Fed. CL - fed law applies only when a specific stat governs the matter where a fed question is before the ct.
Guaranty Trust v. York - Outcome-determinative test?
If substantial effect upon the eventual outcome of the case. Fed ct obliged to follow state rules fo procedure rather than FRCP b/c most procedural rules affect the outcome
Byrd - Strong-fed-policy test:
Fed law m/b applied if a strong fed policy is involved. Requires balancing fed and state interests.
Fed law s/ apply state law when there are matters of:
1. procedure where applying seperate rule w/ likely affect the outcome (York)
2. clearly substantive law (Erie)
Fed court s/ apply fed law where there are matters of:
1. procedure where applying separate rule w/ likely affect the outcome, but there are important fed countervailing considerations (Byrd)
2. procedure where applying separate fed rule is unlikely to affect outcome
Hanna v. Plumer?
modified outcome-determinative test.
A formal Fed Rule m/n/b applied if it impinges on substantive rights under the REA.
When covered by FRCP, use test of whether:
1. Applicable rule is w/in scope of Rules Enabling Act and
2. Such rule transgresses constitutional bounds.